Venice Biennale: when the Serenissima is no longer so serene

Venice is a funny place. A city that is said to be frozen in the past but which continues to vibrate on its century-old stilts to the rhythm of the noise of the world. Particularly during its biennial, the largest art exhibition on the planet, which has just opened its doors against a backdrop of geopolitical crisis, with artists not living in soap bubbles floating above reality. And in this year when the war in the Middle East was added to the war in Ukraine, tension reigns more than ever in the Giardini and the Arsenal, the two high places of the demonstration.

Two events ignited the powder

On the one hand, the decision taken by the organization of the biennial, in the name of « artistic freedom », in his words, to reintegrate Russia into the concert of nations by authorizing the reopening of the Russian pavilion, closed since the start of the invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, the presence, also validated by the organization of the biennial, of Israel and Iran, even if the Islamic Republic announced, just before the opening to the public, that it would ultimately not participate in the event.

Consequence of these decisions: giant platforms and petitions signed in particular by leading artists, more or less peaceful demonstrations, the wholesale resignation of the international jury responsible for handing out the prestigious rewards of the event (in particular the golden lion for the best national participation, where it is the State represented who receives the prize), because he says he is incapable of competing for the flags of nations whose leaders are the subject of a warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

While Russia […] seeks to erase Ukrainian culture, it should not be allowed to expose its own.

Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission

Finally, unanimous political protests arose in Europe, including the vice-president of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas. “As Russia bombs museums, destroys churches and seeks to erase Ukrainian culture, it should not be allowed to exhibit its own,†launched the Estonian, ulcerated, on April 22. In retaliation, the EU will cut its funding for the Venice Biennale by 2 million euros.

Should we applaud or condemn such reactions?

Be satisfied with the soothing words of the organization of the biennial, presenting the event as “a space for dialogue, openness and artistic freedom, in the hope of putting an end to conflicts and suffering.”

Let’s start, perhaps, by trying to understand the situation. Focusing on the specificity of the Venice Biennale, structured into “pavilions” in the colors of states whose institutions choose on project the artists who will represent them. And that’s where the problem lies. Because if we must obviously firmly condemn the boycott of artists on the pretext that they have the nationality of a country whose leaders pursue a reprehensible policy (how do artists have anything to do with it?), the situation is more complicated when the artists work in direct collaboration with this state, to the extent where, for Venice, they offered their services through an application for a nomination process by the institutions of that state.

Whether ministries of Culture or cultural institutes, they are in fact always organizations mandated by the State, which explicitly backs these pavilions and the works of the chosen artist to the cultural apparatus of the country. Not that these are in essence propagandist, obviously, but the process of designating artists and the national architectural setting which houses their works obviously facilitates symbolic recovery.

Under these conditions, let us agree, it becomes very difficult for artists who accept these rules of the game to oppose the accusation of allegiance to governments which, in fact, finance their Venetian installations via their institutions, the countries they direct often being, moreover, owners of the pavilions where the artists exhibit. They even built them: from 1907 for Belgium, Hungary and Germany having built theirs in 1909, France in 1912 and Russia in 1914.

Neither boycott nor demand for artistic freedom

Let us return to the case of the Russian pavilion authorized by the president of the biennial to reopen and to present, since it is sovereign, an exhibition commissioned by the daughter of an executive of the Russian arms giant Rostec, associated with the daughter of Sergey Lavrov.

And if it is too easy to call for a boycott if it is a “trend” today (especially since everyone has their own Turkish faces), is it not just as easy to brandish the argument of “artistic freedom” when it comes, behind the artists and their work, to display, thanks to the Venetian window, a soft state power which, moreover, muzzles artists who do not subscribe to the official narrative?

Therefore, another question arises, and the answer is not simple: can we really – still – organize an artistic event according to national logic?